Hakim declared it authentic on the condition of Muslim. Dhahabi rejected it and said, “Mufaddhal bin Saleh is ‘Waah’” and in another place he said, “Mufadhhal, only Tirmidhi has narrated from him (among six books) and they (scholars) declared him weak”.

Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/45), “As-Sagheer” (1/240) and in “Al-Awsat” (4/9), through Husain bin Ahmed bin Mansur Sajjadah Al-Baghdadi from Abdullah bin Daahir from Abdullah bin Abdul Quddus from A’amash from Abu Ishaq from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir from Abu Dharr, with the additional statement.. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the gate of Hitta (a non Arabic word, see Quran 2:58) for Children of Israel”

Regarding Abdullah bin Daahir, Ahmed and Yahya said that he was nothing (in the field of hadith). `Uqailee said ‘Rafidhi khabeeth’. [‘Al-Meezan’ (2/417), ‘Lisaan Al-Meezan’ (3/282)]

Regarding Abdullah bin Abdul Quddoos, Dhahabi said, “Kufi Rafidhi”. Yahya ibn Mu’een said ‘he is nothing. Rafidhi Khabeeth’. Nasai and others said about him that he was not a trustworthy narrator. Daar Qutni said that he was weak. [See “Al-Meezan” (2/257)]

There is some Kalaam about Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir, which will be discussed later on. Insha Allah.

———————–
Reported by Al-Ajurri in “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347), from Abbaad bin Ya’qoob, from Amr bin Thaabit from Abu Ishaq from Hanash from Abu Dharr…alhadith.

In this chain Abbad bin Ya’qoob was Rafidhi, although fair in hadith and Bukhari narrated his reports in support with others. Abu Hatim said: Shaykh, Thiqah. Ibn Khuzaima said (while narrating a hadith): Narrated to us trustworthy in his narrations, and accused in his religion. Khatib said: Ibn Khuzaima later on stopped narrating from him. Ibn Adi said: He has narrated Ahadith in merits which were rejected on him.

He used to insult Salaf and Sahaba and was very extremist shi’a. Ibn Hibban said: “He died in 250 Hijri. He was a caller to the Rafidhism, and with that he would narrate Munkar narrations from famous narrators.” Daar Qutni said, “he was a shi’a, Sadooq (truthful)”. Ibrahim bin Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah said: If there had not been two shia, there would not been any authentic narrations in support of shi’ism. They were Abbad bin Ya’qoob and Ibrahim ibn Muhammad bin Maymoon. [Al-Meezan (2/379), Tahdheeb (5/95), Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban (2/172)]

The sanad also contain ‘Amr bin Thabit Al-Bakri Abu Muhammad. Ibn Mu’een said, “he was not trustworthy (thiqah)”. In another report Ibn Mu’een said that he was weak. Abu Zur’ah said, ‘weak in hadith’. Similarly Abu Hatim said, and added, ‘his hadith should be written. He was extreme in his view and shi’ism’. Bukhari said, ‘he was not strong in hadith’. [Al-Meezan (3/249)]

At another place in similar tradition Abu Ishaq is changed to Simak bin Harb. That mistake was probably from Amr bin Thabit. Tabarani reported in “Al-Awsat” (5/354), through Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah from `Ali bin Hakeem Al-Awdi from `Amr bin Thabit from Simak bin Harb from Hanash bin Mu`tamir from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.

As for Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sawadah, then Daar Qutni said: his narrations are to be taken for support only, not for proof. Khatib said: I have only seen fair hadith from him.

Common defects in the chain:

All the above narration come through the common narrators, Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr. Keeping this in mind let us analyze this link.

1). Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, although a Thiqah narrator, was a Mudallis who used to do Tadlees through weak narrators. Hafiz Ibn Hajar listed him among the third category of Mudalliseen [Tabaqat Al-Mudalliseen (1/42)], which according to him is the category of those mudallis narrators who did Tadlis through weak narrators, although there is disagreement regarding acceptance or rejection of their narration with ‘an’ana.

In a version of this same hadith, Abu Ishaq narrates it through an unknown person from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir. Al-Fasawi records in his “Al-Ma’rifah wa At-Tarikh” with a sanad much better than above chains, it is mention there:

“(Al-Fasawi said:) Narrated to us Ubaydullah from Isra’eel from Abu Ishaq from a person who narrated to him from Hanash à Abu Dharr…..alhadith”

As it is quite clear that there is an unnamed mubhan narrator between Abu Ishaq and Hanash. And this report should be preferred over other Isnad because Isra’eel bin Yunus in the sanad was a grandson of Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, also he was from the narrator of Kutub Sitta hence thiqah, and Ahmed preferred him over other in in Ahadith of Abu Ishaq. Abu Hatim, Yahya bin Mu’een and others also said that Isra’eel was the most aware of Abu Ishaq’s narrations. [See “Tahdheeb” (1/229)]

And Imam Daar Qutni preferred this sanad over other, as it is mention in “Ilal Daar Qutni” (6/236, q.1098).

So this make the hadith to be weak with all of its chains.

2). Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir has some weakness in him.

Abu Hatim said, Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir is Saleh according to me, I don’t see scholars taking him as proof. Abu Dawud said: Thiqah. Bukhari said: They (scholars) used to criticize his narrations. Nasai said: He was not strong. Ibn Hibban said:He is not to be taken as proof. Al-‘Ijli said: he was Thiqah. Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said: He was not good according to scholars. Al-‘Uqaili, As-Saji, Ibn Jarood, Abu Arab Al-Saqli they all listed him amongst weak narrators. [Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (3/51)]

Ibn Hajar said: Sadooq (truthful) but he had Awham (confusion in narrations) and he also narrates from whom he didn’t hear (i.e. Mursal) [Taqreeb (1582)]

All these factors prove that there is no authentic chain for this. Besides all these, it is also doubtful whether Hanash heard it from Abu Dharr or not. That is because Hanash died in 90 AH or around it as per the statement of As-Safdi in “Al-Waafi”, and if that is true then it is difficult that this Kufi narrator could have heard this from Abu Dharr who died around 33AH or before it during the caliphate of Uthman, near Madina at a place called Ar-Rabdhah. And Hanash saying ‘I heard Abu Dharr’ is not something solid against what was said, because weak narrators many a times confused regarding narrators. WAllahu A’alam

Ibn Al-Jawzi said that Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was nothing, he mentioned that Nasai declared him “Matrook Al-Hadith”, and Sa’di called him “Waahiyul Hadith”. [Al-‘Ilal Al-Mutanahiyah (1/106)]

Secondly, Ali bin Zaid Al-Jid’an is also weak, as said by Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een. Abu Hatim and Bukhari said, “He is not to be depended upon.” Daar Qutni said, “There is weakness (layyin) in him” [See “Al-Meezan” (3/127-129)]

All these weakness shows that the report is Munkar as no one narrates this narration from Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyib except Ali bin Zaid bin Jaid’aan – who was weak – and no one narrates this from Ali bin Zaid except Hasan bin Abi Ja’far – who was also weak – hence as a whole this report is not good for even support.

———————–

Reported by Abu Bakr Al-Ajurri in his book “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347, no.1759), through Harun bin Abdullah Al-Bazzaz, who said, narrated to us Sayyar bin Hatim, narrated to us Harun Al-‘Abdi, he said, A Shaykh narrated to me, that he heard from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari….alhadith.

Reported by Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (6/85) and in “As-Sagheer” (2/84), through Muhammad bin `Abdul `Aziz bin Rabi`ah Al-Kilabi from his father from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad Al-Maqree’ from Abu Salamah As-Sa`igh from `Atiyya from Abu Sa`eed Al-Khudri.

Tabrani said, after narrating the hadith: “No one narrates this from Abu Salamah except Ibn Abi Hammad, and from him Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad was alone in narrating this.”

Hafiz Al-Haythami, after mentioning this narration in his book, said: “reported by Tabrani in his Al-Awsat and As-Sagheer. And in it are a group of narrators unknown to me.” [Majma’ Az-Zawa’id (9/94)]

Al-Haythami, probably, was referring to Muhammad bin ‘Abdul `Aziz, his father, Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad and Abu Salama As-Saa`igh. I have not come across any Jarh or T`adeel regarding them. Wallahu A`alam.

As for `Atiyya Al-Awfi, then he was weak, without any doubt. [See, Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (7/200), no.414]. Some contemporaries has started spreading doubts regarding his weakness. Insha Allah, we’ll compile a detailed analysis of Atiyya’s status in hadith in future.

Ibn Abbas

Reported by Tabarani in “A-Kabeer” (3/46) and Abu Nu’aim in “Hilayah Al-Awliya” (4/306) both of them through the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim, from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Abu Suhba, from Sa’eed bin Jubayr from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.

And Ibn Adi recorded it in “Al-Kamil” (2/760), as mentioned by Shaykh Sa’d Aal Humaid, from the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Amr bin Malik from Abil Jawza from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.

Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was weak munkirul hadith, as we have already discussed it above. As for Abu Suhba Al-Kufi, then Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his “Ath-Thiqaat”, and more than one narrates from him and no one mention any criticism on him. WAllahu A’lam

Abdullah bin Zubair

Reported by Al-Bazzar, as in “Majma’ Az-Zawaid” (9/168) and “Kashf Al-Astaar” (3/222), through Ibn Abi Maryam who said, narrated to us, Ibn Lahee’ah from Abul Aswad from Amir bin Abdullah bin Zubair, from his father…alhadith.

Keeping in mind that this an odd Isnad of this hadith, and Ibn Lahee’ah and then Al-Bazzar were alone with this narrations, there are two points regarding this:

[1]. In the Isnad of the report Ibn Lahee’ah (Abdullah bin Lahee’ah) was weak with the agreement of scholars as none of the three Abdullah, who were aware of actual narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, are the narrator of this report. And those three Abdullah were: Abdullah bin Mubarak, Abdullah bin Wahb and Abdullah bin Yazeed Al-Muqree. Besides that, Ibn Lahee’ah is alone in narrating this hadith through this Isnad, as said by Al-Bazzar as in “Kashf Al-Astar”. And him being alone in narrating this hadith with this Isnad is sufficient for the rejection of this, and not to be counted it as supportive proof. This is because, singular narrations (Ifrad) are accepted from those who were Huffaz. There are long discussions with regards to Ibn Lahee’ahs reports, and scholars are divided into following categories with regards to him:

A). Those who consider his reports to be weak, regardless of whomsoever narrates from him.

B). Those who consider his those reports which are narrated by the three Abdullah, to be authentic.

With regards to the second opinion, its further debatable whether it means that there hearing from Ibn Lahee’ah is proven or the hadith with that chain itself is proven. But in any case, the hadith under discussion was not reported by any of the three Abdullah. Hence therefore the Isnad remains munkar, and it can’t be counted as a support for those narrations whose Isnad are not even closer to this.

Ibn Sa’d said: People used to read Ahadith which were not from his narrations, and he did not say anything. (and it was taken as his narration). When it was asked to him, he replied: “What is my sin? They come to me reading narrations from books and then leave. If they had asked me, I would have said that it was not my Hadith”.[Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d]

Abdur-Rahman Ibn Mahdi said: I do not count anything which I heard from among the narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, except what was narrated by Ibn Mubarak and his likes.

Yahya ibn Mu’een said: He was nothing, regardless of whether his conditions were changed or not.

And in another report Ibn Mu’een said: “He was nothing in all of what he narrates”. Abu Zar’ah was asked regarding those people who heard him earlier, he replied: “Hearing of early and later narrators are equal (in terms of authenticity). However, Ibn Mubarak used to look for his Asl (books etc) and they wrote from it. And all others used to took from Shaykh, and Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t hold (remember) his narrations, and he was from among those who are not to be taken as proof”. Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father, “Is Ibn Lahee’ah to be taken as proof when Ibn Mubarak and Ibn Wahb narrates from him?” He replied, No. [Al-Jarh wa At-Ta’deel (5/147)]

Imam Ibn Hibban said: “I studied narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah narrated by early narrators and later narrators, so I found Takhleet (confusion, mix up between different narratons) in his later narrations, and many narrations which did not narrated by early narrators. So I back to check it for support, so I found him performing Tadlees from weak narrators from those whom Ibn Lahee’ah considered to be trustworthy. And in that way those fabrication were attributed to him.” [Al-Majrooheen (2/12)]

DaarQutni said in his short book “Ad-Du’afa wa Al-Matrookeen”: Those narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah which came through Ibn Mubarak, Al-Muqree and Ibn Wahb are to be taken for support.

By all these quotes it is evident that Ibn Lahee’ah was himself weak even before his books were burnt, but his early narrations are to be taken as support and later narrations shouldn’t be taken even as support, because of possibility of Tadlees and Takhleet, specially when he came up with with an odd Isnad which was not narrated by anyone like him or better than him. Ibn Lahee’ah was a Mudallis and as we know Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t affirmed his hearing in the tradition under discussion, rather he narrates it with ‘an’ana form. Besides that even those traditions in which he affirmed his hearing are doubtful whether he heard it or not, that is because of his weakness he many a times changed ‘an’ana to haddathna. For more detail on the status of Ibn Lahee’ah refer to the book “An-Naqd Al-Binna li Hadeeth Asmaa” (pg. 41 onwards) by Shaykh Tariq Awadhullah, where the author analyzed all the views regarding Ibn Lahee’ah.

[2]. The second point which is to be looked into, Al-Bazzar was alone in reporting this through the route of Ibn Lahee’ah. Al-Bazzar was although a Hafiz of Hadith, but was also known for his mistakes in Sanad and Matan.

Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said, “He did mistakes in Sanad and Matan”. Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim said, “I asked Daar Qutni regarding him, to which he replied that he used to make mistakes in Sanad and Matan.” Nasai criticized him, but he was thiqah who made many mistakes. [Meezan Al-E’itedal (1/124)]

In the chain above, both Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi and Aslam Al-Makki are Majhool. Regarding Abdul Karim bin Hilal Dhahabi said: I am not aware who he is. [Al-Meezan (2/647)]. Aslam Al-Makki was also unknown. No one mention him besides Ibn Hibban who listed him among “Ath-Thiqat” (4/46). No one narrates from Aslam Al-Makki except Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi (who himself was unknown), and these type of narrators are considered Majhool in correct view, but Ibn Hibban would consider them Thiqah and he was famous for making Tawtheeq of Majhool narrators. In another version of this report Abu Tufayl narrates from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, instead of directly from Prophet (SAW). [Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aliyah (16/220)] That is probably a mistake from some narrator. In any case the report is very weak, as said earlier. WAllahu A’alam

Athar of Ali bin Abi Taalib

Besides all the above quoted Marfoo’ narrations, there is a Mawqoof Athar of Ali (R.A.). It was reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his “Al-Musannaf” (6/372, h.32115):

Ibn Abi Shayba said: Narrated to us Mu’awiyah bin Hisham who said, narrated us ‘Ammar from A’mash from Minhal from Abdullah bin Al-Haarith from Ali (R.A.), he said, “Our similitude in this Ummah is like the Ark of Noah and the book Al-Hittah in Bani Israel”.

All the narrators of this are reliable. But that is not something specific to the members of household of the Prophet (SAW). Ali did not say, “Ahlul Bayt are like ark of Noah”, he rather said, “our similitude are like ark of Noah”. It means similitude of believers or companions are like ark of Noah. And that is what Quran tells us:

And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination. [Qur’an, An-Nisa, verse 115]

In conclusion, we say, all the isnad of this hadith is based on rejected, unknown or weak narrators, some isnad have single common narrator who was very weak or rejected. Hence we conclude, what was concluded that this hadith, with all its Isnad, is very weak hadith. WAllahu A’lam